Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 928 F.2d 1084 - Devlin v. Ingrum

Devlin v. Ingrum’s Empirical Analysis

928 F.2d 1084 · 1991

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
July 2014
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 35 U.S.C. § 154 · 35 U.S.C. § 262

Relies on Waterman v. Mackenzie · United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co. · School Board of Nassau County, Florida, Et Al. v. Arline · Bement Sons v. National Harrow Company · United States v. Univis Lens Co.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A district court’s determination regarding the existence of a valid contract will not be set aside unless clearly errone ous. The clearly erroneous standard of review applies to both subsidiary and ultimate facts. Concerning the existence of a contract, this court has recognized that it is logical for the reviewing court to treat ultimate facts as matters of law that it may determine independently.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “intention of the parties at the time of making [a] contract controls, not subsequent perceptions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.